Camber Bolt Adjustment

-
jonn6464

jonn6464

1970 Duster
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
1,066
Reaction score
949
Location
Weatherford, TX
Hey FABO,

Somebody please school me on this.

I put in QA1 upper control arms, along with their camber adjustment bolts. You can see them here...
upload_2020-3-10_14-55-14.png


My question is simply about the best way to position these, PRIOR to adding weight to the front end. There is currently no engine in the car and very little weight on the front end.
Should the eccentric offset hole be positioned at the center & bottom (like in the pic above)? Or clocked in one direction? I will get an alignment once the car is built and road-ready, I'm trying to do what I can now to make it easier to dial in when the time comes.

I understand the theory of positive, zero, and negative camber (and how it positions the tire). I'm wondering if someone can help me understand where the offset hole in the washer should be, and where it will travel to, after the engine is dropped in.

Hard to see in these pics, but here they are currently. I will upload more pics after work tonight. These pics don't really tell anything, sorry.
upload_2020-3-10_14-46-17.png


upload_2020-3-10_14-46-43.png


upload_2020-3-10_14-47-19.png


Thank you.
 
It’s really up to you. The QA1 UCA’s have additional positive caster built in, so that may change the way you set the adjustment.

Usually I start at the maximum positive caster setting, which means the forward adjuster is set so the control arm is all the way “out” and the rear adjuster is set so the control arm is all the way “in”. Or in other words the front adjuster positions the control arm as far away from the frame as it will go and the rear adjuster pulls it in to the frame as far as it will go. That setting creates the most positive caster you can have regardless of what UCA you’re using.

Depending on the UCA and your ride height you may need to adjust further from there to get your camber where you want it. I run my cars lower than stock, so max positive caster usually results in some negative camber, which is good for radials.

But it really depends on what you want for an alignment. For radials positive caster and slightly negative camber is what you want. How positive you make the caster and how negative you want the camber depends on how aggressive you want your handling to be.

The SKOSH chart is a good guide, although it’s a little conservative with positive caster IMHO, especially for a power steering car. Some of that I think is leftover from the parts available at the time, it was hard to get more than +3* of caster even with offset UCA bushings. Personally I think you can add about +2* caster to these recommendations across the board.

DA26E6E3-11E9-4E75-BF3C-480F8C815353.jpeg
 
72bluNblu said:
It’s really up to you. The QA1 UCA’s have additional positive caster built in, so that may change the way you set the adjustment.

Usually I start at the maximum positive caster setting, which means the forward adjuster is set so the control arm is all the way “out” and the rear adjuster is set so the control arm is all the way “in”. Or in other words the front adjuster positions the control arm as far away from the frame as it will go and the rear adjuster pulls it in to the frame as far as it will go. That setting creates the most positive caster you can have regardless of what UCA you’re using.

Depending on the UCA and your ride height you may need to adjust further from there to get your camber where you want it. I run my cars lower than stock, so max positive caster usually results in some negative camber, which is good for radials.

But it really depends on what you want for an alignment. For radials positive caster and slightly negative camber is what you want. How positive you make the caster and how negative you want the camber depends on how aggressive you want your handling to be.

The SKOSH chart is a good guide, although it’s a little conservative with positive caster IMHO, especially for a power steering car. Some of that I think is leftover from the parts available at the time, it was hard to get more than +3* of caster even with offset UCA bushings. Personally I think you can add about +2* caster to these recommendations across the board.

View attachment 1715484982
Click to expand...


Reviving this thread!

I also installed the Qa1 torsion bar system in my 1969 Dart and out of 2 shops. No one had been able to align it.

I can’t get anywhere close to -.5 camber.

Today I crawled under and reset the camber bolts to having the front ones to provide max caster and rear ones in.

It did make my camber extra negative like you said but I want to be able to get to -.5 on each side.

And suggestions on what to tell the shops? So far I’ve have this car aligned 3 times and one says my lower control arm is too long and the other says my upper control arm is too short.

I set the camber bolts how you said and then I’m planning on taking it to a shop and having them play with it to get it right. Not sure what the optimal height is on this set up. I am planning to make it a daily driver not track so I don’t want to be eating up the tires .
The shop was able to get -1.5 camber on one side and -2.3 on the passenger. Way off from being close to what QA1 specifies

I am also located in northern CA, any shops you recommend?

Lastly one Bolt for the K-member was loose and when up in the air, it had a gap. I am thinking that has to be the reason they couldn’t align it but even then would it be that way off?

I tighten it and rest the camber bolts and torsion bar bolts

IMG_2596.jpeg


IMG_2597.jpeg


IMG_2594.jpeg


IMG_2593.jpeg


IMG_2588.jpeg


IMG_2587.jpeg
 
1969DartCustom said:
Reviving this thread!

I also installed the Qa1 torsion bar system in my 1969 Dart and out of 2 shops. No one had been able to align it.

I can’t get anywhere close to -.5 camber.

Today I crawled under and reset the camber bolts to having the front ones to provide max caster and rear ones in.

It did make my camber extra negative like you said but I want to be able to get to -.5 on each side.

And suggestions on what to tell the shops? So far I’ve have this car aligned 3 times and one says my lower control arm is too long and the other says my upper control arm is too short.

I set the camber bolts how you said and then I’m planning on taking it to a shop and having them play with it to get it right. Not sure what the optimal height is on this set up. I am planning to make it a daily driver not track so I don’t want to be eating up the tires .
The shop was able to get -1.5 camber on one side and -2.3 on the passenger. Way off from being close to what QA1 specifies

I am also located in northern CA, any shops you recommend?

Lastly one Bolt for the K-member was loose and when up in the air, it had a gap. I am thinking that has to be the reason they couldn’t align it but even then would it be that way off?

I tighten it and rest the camber bolts and torsion bar bolts

View attachment 1716226929

View attachment 1716226930

View attachment 1716226931

View attachment 1716226932

View attachment 1716226933

View attachment 1716226934
Click to expand...

Wow, there's A LOT going on there.

Right off the bat, yes, the loose K member bolts will make it basically impossible to align the car. Even if you did succeed somehow in getting the alignment in the right window, it would change as soon as you moved the car because the K member can move around. The K frame must be torqued to spec before any of this can proceed.

Next, the ride height appears to be pretty high. That can cause problems all by itself, the suspension geometry gets worse the higher the car is raised. The final ride height must be set before you get an alignment, because the alignment numbers change with the ride height.

The alignment shops you took the car to are incompetent. Saying things like the control arms are too short or too long suggests they don't have the foggiest idea of what they're doing. That, combined with the fact that they missed the loose K member bolts means anywhere that car has been for an alignment isn't somewhere it should ever return. And perhaps saying which shops were used will help others avoid them.

Unfortunately I do not have a shop I can recommend for an alignment anymore. I had one place that was ok because the lead tech was a circle track racer in his spare time, but he left long ago and nowadays the techs at most shops are mechanically one step above a Walmart oil change tech, and they don't trust them to remove the oil pan drain bolt anymore. So, yeah. I bought my own gear and do my own alignments now.

You can use this method to figure out the ride height for the car. You need to do this before you attempt another alignment. This is from the factory manual, if you don't already have one download one from here Service Manuals – MyMopar

img_1893-jpeg.jpg


This method should still work just fine with your QA1 parts too, by the way.

Once the K member has been torqued and the ride height set, I would loosen and re-torque the LCA pivot nuts with the car sitting on the ground. Your QA1 LCA's have rubber bushings, so they need to be tightened at ride height. And then check the torque on everything else.

After all of that has been done, you can have another go at setting a rough alignment and see what you get. With any luck it will be much closer than what you have now, which is undriveable.
 
1969DartCustom said:
Reviving this thread!

I also installed the Qa1 torsion bar system in my 1969 Dart and out of 2 shops. No one had been able to align it.

I can’t get anywhere close to -.5 camber.

Today I crawled under and reset the camber bolts to having the front ones to provide max caster and rear ones in.

It did make my camber extra negative like you said but I want to be able to get to -.5 on each side.

And suggestions on what to tell the shops? So far I’ve have this car aligned 3 times and one says my lower control arm is too long and the other says my upper control arm is too short.

I set the camber bolts how you said and then I’m planning on taking it to a shop and having them play with it to get it right. Not sure what the optimal height is on this set up. I am planning to make it a daily driver not track so I don’t want to be eating up the tires .
The shop was able to get -1.5 camber on one side and -2.3 on the passenger. Way off from being close to what QA1 specifies

I am also located in northern CA, any shops you recommend?

Lastly one Bolt for the K-member was loose and when up in the air, it had a gap. I am thinking that has to be the reason they couldn’t align it but even then would it be that way off?

I tighten it and rest the camber bolts and torsion bar bolts

View attachment 1716226929

View attachment 1716226930

View attachment 1716226931

View attachment 1716226932

View attachment 1716226933

View attachment 1716226934
Click to expand...
Your picture looks like it shows your front all the way in towards motor and rear all the way out. The opposite of the way it should be. Jed
 
72bluNblu said:
Wow, there's A LOT going on there.

Right off the bat, yes, the loose K member bolts will make it basically impossible to align the car. Even if you did succeed somehow in getting the alignment in the right window, it would change as soon as you moved the car because the K member can move around. The K frame must be torqued to spec before any of this can proceed.

Next, the ride height appears to be pretty high. That can cause problems all by itself, the suspension geometry gets worse the higher the car is raised. The final ride height must be set before you get an alignment, because the alignment numbers change with the ride height.

The alignment shops you took the car to are incompetent. Saying things like the control arms are too short or too long suggests they don't have the foggiest idea of what they're doing. That, combined with the fact that they missed the loose K member bolts means anywhere that car has been for an alignment isn't somewhere it should ever return. And perhaps saying which shops were used will help others avoid them.

Unfortunately I do not have a shop I can recommend for an alignment anymore. I had one place that was ok because the lead tech was a circle track racer in his spare time, but he left long ago and nowadays the techs at most shops are mechanically one step above a Walmart oil change tech, and they don't trust them to remove the oil pan drain bolt anymore. So, yeah. I bought my own gear and do my own alignments now.

You can use this method to figure out the ride height for the car. You need to do this before you attempt another alignment. This is from the factory manual, if you don't already have one download one from here Service Manuals – MyMopar

View attachment 1716226983

This method should still work just fine with your QA1 parts too, by the way.

Once the K member has been torqued and the ride height set, I would loosen and re-torque the LCA pivot nuts with the car sitting on the ground. Your QA1 LCA's have rubber bushings, so they need to be tightened at ride height. And then check the torque on everything else.

After all of that has been done, you can have another go at setting a rough alignment and see what you get. With any luck it will be much closer than what you have now, which is undriveable.
Click to expand...


Ah, I appreciate the info and reply!

I got the manual handy and will read over the settings. I thought the QA1 system would be different but it’s pretty much a bolt on / OEM replacement.


The car appears to be high since it’s on the jack stands.


I torqued down the k member Bolt. I didn’t think about the LCA pivot but. I did have the car on ramps/ rode hight when those were installed. Not sure when the K member bolt got loose but it’s just one but that gap definitely made a difference when I torqued it down.

As for the cam bolts, I think the front cam is the wrong way like Jed said.

I was watching the caster and it seemed to push it forward m/ to the right this way but I’ll re-do it after reading up on the manual. I’ll give it a go later on tomorrow.

Here’s the ride height/ look before I got it aligned.

Running 205 65 15 in the front and went to 235 60 15 for the rear since the 245 60 15 was running a bit on the passenger rear. Not too much but rather not risk a blowout

IMG_2563.jpeg
 
I always start regardless of aftermarket parts or not with the front cam adjusted to make the front of the control arm as long as it can be and the rear cam adjusted to make the rear of the control arm as short as it can be. Just as Jed described. It's always been a good starting point "for me".
 
72bluNblu said:
Wow, there's A LOT going on there.

Right off the bat, yes, the loose K member bolts will make it basically impossible to align the car. Even if you did succeed somehow in getting the alignment in the right window, it would change as soon as you moved the car because the K member can move around. The K frame must be torqued to spec before any of this can proceed.

Next, the ride height appears to be pretty high. That can cause problems all by itself, the suspension geometry gets worse the higher the car is raised. The final ride height must be set before you get an alignment, because the alignment numbers change with the ride height.

The alignment shops you took the car to are incompetent. Saying things like the control arms are too short or too long suggests they don't have the foggiest idea of what they're doing. That, combined with the fact that they missed the loose K member bolts means anywhere that car has been for an alignment isn't somewhere it should ever return. And perhaps saying which shops were used will help others avoid them.

Unfortunately I do not have a shop I can recommend for an alignment anymore. I had one place that was ok because the lead tech was a circle track racer in his spare time, but he left long ago and nowadays the techs at most shops are mechanically one step above a Walmart oil change tech, and they don't trust them to remove the oil pan drain bolt anymore. So, yeah. I bought my own gear and do my own alignments now.

You can use this method to figure out the ride height for the car. You need to do this before you attempt another alignment. This is from the factory manual, if you don't already have one download one from here Service Manuals – MyMopar

View attachment 1716226983

This method should still work just fine with your QA1 parts too, by the way.

Once the K member has been torqued and the ride height set, I would loosen and re-torque the LCA pivot nuts with the car sitting on the ground. Your QA1 LCA's have rubber bushings, so they need to be tightened at ride height. And then check the torque on everything else.

After all of that has been done, you can have another go at setting a rough alignment and see what you get. With any luck it will be much closer than what you have now, which is undriveable.
Click to expand...
out of curiosity what year FSM is that? my '76 tells me to measure from the bottom of the torsion bar socket and shoot for 10 15/16". that feels really high. I have it set at about 10 3/8" with the .92" bars I put in, and it still looks high (although my 33 year old 5 leaf springs in back are likely sagging), and that leaves about 5/8" between the bump stop and the contact point on the K frame.

one other question, when you guys set ride height, do you set it with your weight in the driver's seat? I drive my car solo 90% of the time, so it seems to make sense to me that I should set ride height with my weight (about 235 lb) in the driver's seat, and probably have the car aligned that way too, or with me sitting in it. thoughts?
 
michiganpat said:
out of curiosity what year FSM is that? my '76 tells me to measure from the bottom of the torsion bar socket and shoot for 10 15/16". that feels really high. I have it set at about 10 3/8" with the .92" bars I put in, and it still looks high (although my 33 year old 5 leaf springs in back are likely sagging), and that leaves about 5/8" between the bump stop and the contact point on the K frame.

one other question, when you guys set ride height, do you set it with your weight in the driver's seat? I drive my car solo 90% of the time, so it seems to make sense to me that I should set ride height with my weight (about 235 lb) in the driver's seat, and probably have the car aligned that way too, or with me sitting in it. thoughts?
Click to expand...

It's from a '73 manual. It looks like they changed the measurement procedure in '75, maybe had something to do with the cars that had the rubber isolated K frame? Or maybe the bent T-bar F cars?

Regardless, the factory ride height IS really high. My ride height is set so my A-B is 0, and it's still not slammed on the ground.

As far as the ride height and alignment goes, I've done it both ways. If you're driving the car 90% of the time with a certain weight distribution, it makes sense to set ride height and the alignment with that weight configuration.
 
72bluNblu said:
It's from a '73 manual. It looks like they changed the measurement procedure in '75, maybe had something to do with the cars that had the rubber isolated K frame? Or maybe the bent T-bar F cars?

Regardless, the factory ride height IS really high. My ride height is set so my A-B is 0, and it's still not slammed on the ground.

As far as the ride height and alignment goes, I've done it both ways. If you're driving the car 90% of the time with a certain weight distribution, it makes sense to set ride height and the alignment with that weight configuration.
Click to expand...
I can see why the A-B difference makes sense, it takes tire diameter out of the equation. making the A-B measurement 0, how much of an airgap is there between the lower bumpstop and the K frame? I currently have about 5/8" gap, and the front is sitting about an inch higher than my 33 year old 5 leaf SD rear springs. that's set about 1/2" lower than the FSM specifies for '76, and that's with taller than stock tires (225/70R14's that are on the cheap rims I bought to be able to get it on the ground). I am shocked that I have similar clearance turning with these tires as I had with the factory drums and 195/70's.

IMG_1713[1].JPG


IMG_1723[1].JPG
 
michiganpat said:
I can see why the A-B difference makes sense, it takes tire diameter out of the equation. making the A-B measurement 0, how much of an airgap is there between the lower bumpstop and the K frame? I currently have about 5/8" gap, and the front is sitting about an inch higher than my 33 year old 5 leaf SD rear springs. that's set about 1/2" lower than the FSM specifies for '76, and that's with taller than stock tires (225/70R14's that are on the cheap rims I bought to be able to get it on the ground). I am shocked that I have similar clearance turning with these tires as I had with the factory drums and 195/70's.

View attachment 1716227230

View attachment 1716227231
Click to expand...

So in order to have the A-B at 0 I have QA1 LCA’s and 3/8” tall bump stops. The QA1’s add almost 1” of travel between the LCA and the frame. And the 3/8” tall bump stop adds almost another 1”.

So with stock bump stops and .92” bars I’d say you’re already as low as you can go if you’ve only got 5/8” clearance. At that height you will be using the bump stop as part of your everyday driving. Which they were intended to be part of, the factory definitely counted on the suspension using the bump stops and that’s why the factory bump stops are progressive.

But that’s a different suspension philosophy from what I run with my 1.12” bars and shorty poly bump stops, my car is not set up to use the bump stops as part of the regular travel.

Regardless, an A-B of 0 is not something you can go with factory parts, it basically would the LCA on the frame.
 
torqued everything down and reset the cam bolts and tightened anything else that was overlooked.

Looks like I’m heading in the right direction.

Car is sitting fairly low. The sway bar is about 3.5 inches off the floor though.

Car is not sitting on bumpstops and the A&B was set to 0.

Taking a break I’ll bounce it around a bit more.

I know it’s a bit different based on the size of tires as well but the top my 205 65 15 tires are almost in line with the wheel well. 24” inches from the top of fender opening to the floor.

This is how tall it was before the swap.

How low are the QA1 swap bars usually? I dont mind going higher if it means I can go over speed bumps haha

IMG_2633.jpeg


IMG_2634.jpeg


IMG_2635.jpeg


IMG_2632.jpeg
 
That bar sure is low. You can kiss those grease fittings goodbye.
 
I can always raise the height abojt 1 more inch to add more clearance to the bar. Should put me at 4 inches.

From what I’ve seen, it appears the QA1 bars hang lower than others
 
1969DartCustom said:
I can always raise the height abojt 1 more inch to add more clearance to the bar. Should put me at 4 inches.

From what I’ve seen, it appears the QA1 bars hang lower than others
Click to expand...
I relocated mine from where the kit would have put it and now it's above the valance support that bolts between the radiator support and front valance. WAY up.
 
1969DartCustom said:
torqued everything down and reset the cam bolts and tightened anything else that was overlooked.

Looks like I’m heading in the right direction.

Car is sitting fairly low. The sway bar is about 3.5 inches off the floor though.

Car is not sitting on bumpstops and the A&B was set to 0.

Taking a break I’ll bounce it around a bit more.

I know it’s a bit different based on the size of tires as well but the top my 205 65 15 tires are almost in line with the wheel well. 24” inches from the top of fender opening to the floor.

This is how tall it was before the swap.

How low are the QA1 swap bars usually? I dont mind going higher if it means I can go over speed bumps haha

View attachment 1716227362

View attachment 1716227363

View attachment 1716227364

View attachment 1716227361
Click to expand...

Well the angle on the tires looks better!

That is too low. The QA1 sway bar location is definitely lower than others, especially the 73+ style sway bar that runs through the K frame. And while you might not be sitting on the bump stops at that height you're still going to need more clearance than that, those are poly bump stops so you're not going to want to be using them very often. I'm not sure you mentioned what size torsion bars you're running?

Anyway, even with 1.12" bars you'll want close to an inch between the bump stop and the frame. I run my car at about 24 7/8" to the top of the wheel opening, and even that puts the header flanges below 4" to the road. They don't scrape most of the time at that height, I can get over most speed bumps if I take it easy, etc. So my suggestion would be to raise it up about an inch.
 
I will grab the part numbers but I swapped from a slant 6 to a magnum 318.

I bought some used 318 torsion v8 bars. I’ll look up the part number. Here’s an old pic of the ad

If I recall correctly, they are .850 bars

IMG_2636.png
 
Last edited:
for what it's worth, my plain jane slant six no power nothin' '76 slant six came stock with .850's. I just got it back together with .920's (still need to bleed the brakes before I get it out), but pushing it down, it still feels pretty soft, though it doesn't have a sway bar yet.

.85" bars have a wheel rate of ~100lb/in
.92 bars are ~150 lb/in
1" bars are ~200 lb/in
 
1969DartCustom said:
I will grab the part numbers but I swapped from a slant 6 to a magnum 318.

I bought some used 318 torsion v8 bars. I’ll look up the part number. Here’s an old pic of the ad

If I recall correctly, they are .850 bars

View attachment 1716227458
Click to expand...

If those are the bars you're going to use, you'll definitely need to raise the car at least an inch.

The bump stops on those QA1's are poly, and they are not progressive like the factory bump stops. It will be noticeable when they contact the frame.
michiganpat said:
for what it's worth, my plain jane slant six no power nothin' '76 slant six came stock with .850's. I just got it back together with .920's (still need to bleed the brakes before I get it out), but pushing it down, it still feels pretty soft, though it doesn't have a sway bar yet.

.85" bars have a wheel rate of ~100lb/in
.92 bars are ~150 lb/in
1" bars are ~200 lb/in
Click to expand...

Most modern cars are north of 200 lb/in wheel rates, and we're not talking performance or sports cars there either.

I ran 1" bars on my Duster for a bit and found them to be pretty soft still. I did not have sway bars on it at the time but the body roll was still significant too, even with just 225/60/15's on it- so not some crazy performance tire allowing for higher corner loads like the 275/35/18's and 295/40/18's that are on it now.

I've been running it pretty much as a daily driver with 1.12" bars and with the Hotchkis Fox shocks on it the ride isn't harsh at all. Fairly comparable to modern performance cars really.

I wouldn't bother with anything smaller than PST 1.03's, even for a cruiser.
 
Chris Birdsong just put up a alignment video on his Utube channel a few days ago. Worth the time to watch.
think it is Junkerup or search his name.
 
72bluNblu said:
If those are the bars you're going to use, you'll definitely need to raise the car at least an inch.

The bump stops on those QA1's are poly, and they are not progressive like the factory bump stops. It will be noticeable when they contact the frame.


Most modern cars are north of 200 lb/in wheel rates, and we're not talking performance or sports cars there either.

I ran 1" bars on my Duster for a bit and found them to be pretty soft still. I did not have sway bars on it at the time but the body roll was still significant too, even with just 225/60/15's on it- so not some crazy performance tire allowing for higher corner loads like the 275/35/18's and 295/40/18's that are on it now.

I've been running it pretty much as a daily driver with 1.12" bars and with the Hotchkis Fox shocks on it the ride isn't harsh at all. Fairly comparable to modern performance cars really.

I wouldn't bother with anything smaller than PST 1.03's, even for a cruiser.
Click to expand...
what are you using in the rear? I would think you'd want to keep your front and rear ride frequencies within 10% of each other. assuming 3400lb with driver and a 55/45 weight bias for my /6, no PS/PB/AC car, I get about 1.31/1.46hz front and rear if I get the 130 lb/in rate 6 leaf 340/360 spec springs. are you running circle track springs then with the big t-bars? was temped by the price of the speedway 175 lb/in springs, but figured that would be way too stiff and unbalanced with my .92" bars https://www.speedwaymotors.com/Speedway-Chrysler-Type-Multi-Leaf-Spring-175-Lb-Rate,3526.html
 
michiganpat said:
what are you using in the rear? I would think you'd want to keep your front and rear ride frequencies within 10% of each other. assuming 3400lb with driver and a 55/45 weight bias for my /6, no PS/PB/AC car, I get about 1.31/1.46hz front and rear if I get the 130 lb/in rate 6 leaf 340/360 spec springs. are you running circle track springs then with the big t-bars? was temped by the price of the speedway 175 lb/in springs, but figured that would be way too stiff and unbalanced with my .92" bars https://www.speedwaymotors.com/Speedway-Chrysler-Type-Multi-Leaf-Spring-175-Lb-Rate,3526.html
Click to expand...
I have 121 lb/in AFCO's with a Hellwig E-body (7/8") sway bar. The 1.12's in the front are 300 lb/in. The AFCO's are no longer available in that rate.

Most of the guys that are doing road course and autoX are running rear springs in the 130 lb/in range with good success, I don't think I'd want to go above around 140 lb/in or so in the back. AFCO does offer a Chrysler style spring in 142 lb/in, that would be the highest I'd consider unless something changes dramatically. The Mopar oval track springs were 120-130 lb/in.

I ran super stock springs on my Challenger for a while with 1.12" bars in the front (270 lb/in on an E-body), the car was too stiff in the back with that combination.
 
interesting. quick calcs it looks like your front ride frequency is still under 2 (~1.8ish), but your rear is likely closer to 10-20% lower than the front instead of 10-20% higher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top